I was surprised to see this, because I thought a previous FCC regulatory decision limited Starlink terminals to being operational only when stationary.
Some Googling revealed that the FCC reversed this in June of 2022.
I'm still curious about the legal situation here. Why is it banned by default? I mean other wireless communications are totally fine to use while in motion (HAM, cell service, wifi, CB, GPS, Satellite telephones, etc). Why does the FCC explicitly have to approve this kind of thing? I imagine it is more than bureaucracy?
I don’t think it’s banned by default, but the rules surrounding mobile and fixed differ slightly. Perhaps getting limited regulatory approval for a fixed network would face less regulatory hoops and thus be approved faster.
AFAIK all FCC rules on frequency allocation (which is what SpaceX needed) are usually geo-locked. It's a lot easier to commit to fixed transmitters early on with the idea that any specific problems can be dealt with than getting permission to move them around at will.
Also, during this time the FCC has been redoing the rules on the bands they use to try to allow companies this kind of use. So in 2021 they asked for ideas, and SpaceX suggested mobile uplinks as a permissible use. Then, hearings and feedback from a lot of companies occurred.
Since RF spectrum is a very limited resource, everything is approached from a standpoint of "nothing is okay, unless it explicitly is". It is, rightly, tightly managed.
The things you mentioned are either in public bands (HAM, CB) or have long since gotten the same permission (sat phones).
The only reason this is newsworthy is because spacex/starlink. Headlines like "Satellite Phones BANNED (before the FCC approved their application)" don't get clicks.
From what I read, Musk doesn't want your money for SpaceX/Starlink precisely because he doesn't want the funds of the company to be chained to a public perception war that distracts him from running the company, like happened with Tesla during the doubtful years when half of the market was betting against him. Why take public funding when you can reap all the revenue directly?
It sounds like you're upset that you're not considered an accredited investor - but even if you were, it's not like SpaceX would just give you some shares if you gave them $10M.
What makes you think Elon would take your money? Do you plan to email him? Why take a large number of small dollar checks from people who (as a group) don't know the first thing about private company investment when you can take a $100M check from one of a few funds and individuals who do? What specifically do you bring to the table that your $10K investment will make up for the administrative costs of having you on the cap table?
The reality is that companies who can raise capital from top-tier investors will do that and not bother with what to them is chump-change - but the companies that can't raise capital from top-tier investors will definitely take your money and then proceed to lose it all.
[edit] The system we have right now is a pretty reasonable balance IMO and the bar has been going lower and lower over time as the $1M/$200K/yr limits aren't indexed to inflation.
I don't actually disagree with you, I don't like the limits on individual investment. It's a weird mashup of paternalism and protectionism by large banks that want to capture startup value.
But in practice I do not believe that even in a highly deregulated investment environment SpaceX would open itself up to retail investment right now.
We did actually try this, and it was a contributing factor to the Great Depression.
Because (a) you don't know Elon (b) you provide no value to them (c) at this stage they're not taking $10K checks from private investors because it would cost more to keep it on the cap table than it would benefit them and ...
Theres massive adverse selection bias. Good companies get significantly more value from raising a few small checks than they do from a ton of tiny ones from people without experience doing so or specific skills/connections. So the ones that can, will, and the bad companies that can't will come for the small time chumps. This played out in the early 1900s, and no, nothing's really changed.
Besides if Elon really wanted your $10K they could have raised via Reg CF (JOBS act 2012). However, they're actively choosing not to. And I keep using $10K as the number because honestly if you're writing a $100K check you're probably an accredited investor.
The government that exists solely because I work and pay taxes has no ethical basis for telling me how I can invest my money.
To suggest otherwise is to let the mask slip and admit they are not working in my (or your) interest.
The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him.
Instead I have a maternal nanny state that employs exclusively 70IQ morons telling me what I can and can’t do with the money they don’t steal from me. There is no Jack Bauer running the show, it’s your kindergarten teacher with NSA powers.
Explain to me, in detail, why I would continue to work for a system like that? Why would I not try to leave such a system as soon as I am able?
> The part you’re missing is if elon rejected my $100k 3+ years ago then OK, fine. That would suck for me, but that’s his choice etc. I can bitch to him.
He did, because he didn't run a CF campaign. Savvy?
Good companies that want your money have avenues, and yeah it may take a bit of extra paperwork but that's just fine. Look at Replit raising via WeFunder.
> if 100Mb Comcast was available in my area I would trade it in a heartbeat
Um...duh. Starlink isn't meant to replace your internet where typical options are available. It's meant to give something where there was nothing, or replace much worse satellite internet options.
You’d be shocked how many areas outside major metro areas don’t have any broadband options. When we were buying a home recently, we had to carefully search Comcast and Wave’s websites to make sure the home had broadband service. Lots of homes only had satellite internet.
If you add RVs, boats, and planes, there’s an even bigger potential market for Starlink.
Worldwide? Definitely. Enough that also have the resources to pay? Not 100% sure, but I would imagine so. I think I read 500,000 Australians alone live in places with very little internet connection, or are currently served with Geo-Sync internet heavily subsidized by our government.
I’ve experienced these pauses as well but they’ve only been problematic on real time video calls in practice. I wouldn’t trade my fiber for full time Starlink but I would definitely choose it over any Comcast offering (for personal use)
I use starlink here in the UK. I don't get any drops and I spend probably around 4 hours a day on video calls. I've heard people say it can be regional though.
A friend has regular "RV" starlink, and uses it all the time in motion strapped on top of his spare tire on the rear tailgate of his SUV. It works flawlessly.... except he's done a TON of off road driving on bad corrugations, which eventually killed it - I guess the internal motors are not designed for those kind of vibrations.
What type of warranty does the dish come with? Also, do they have some mechanism to detect if it was used "incorrectly" similar to how old iPhones used to have a color changing strip inside to detect water damage?
(a) is it the same phased array antenna as dishy v2?
(b) is power usage improved? at 90 Watts dishy v2 is not perfect for an RV.
(c) dishy v2 has pretty slow startup time. It might be less than perfect if that thing required 10 minutes of unobstructed view to bootstrap.
I have mixed experiences with dishyv2 tech. I've had situations when it was flawless with half-obstructed view. I've had moments when it had hiccups without any obstructions.
Anyway, very interesting. Obviously this is a big deal for many applications.
It is an issue when your parked off grid and run off battery, 90w is significant. My 5G router with wifi 6 pulls under 10w direct 12v DC. It looks like the flat dish is actually 110-150w and requires AC power, so not great for off grid usage as inverter losses will add another 10-20w on top.
Not sure if the current fleet talk much. With ubiquitous connectivity, maybe we could have all those vehicles talking to each other to act collectively.
The majority of RV/vanlifers do not need internet in motion, they just want a regular static 12V dish that can be mounted fixed and flush to the roof/racks like any solar panel.
$2500 for such a dish is the wrong target market. The only customer that needs internet in motion are things like boats, planes, trains and buses.
Normal dishy works fine in motion so while it would be nice to have a lower priced option more suitable for mounting that doesn't work while in motion, such a distinction would be software only, and that always feels scummy.
How would you feel if you paid $700 for a vehicle mountable dish and then had the option to pay $2000 to "upgrade" it to allow to use it while it was in motion?
That's the sort of thing that really bothers some people. Hacker News celebrated when New Jersey proposed banning that sort of thing in cars.
I don't think interruptions are a problem with satellite TV. The satellites are in geosynchronous orbit (unlike Starlink in low-earth-orbit). As long as your view is not blocked or impeded by bad weather you will never see an interruption. Source: worked on satellite TV set top boxes (also had DirecTV for awhile).
This press release seems pretty light on information. This could be a phased array antenna according to this review (which seems to be focused on airplane-mounted devices):
> "Currently the most popular alternative to Gimbal antennas are Phased Array Antenna flat panel antennas, which are composed of many radiating elements that can be thought of as numerous, tiny, fixed antennas. Each one has a phase shifter which forms beams by shifting the phase of the signal emitted from each of the radiating elements (tiny antennas). This provides a constructive/destructive interference which may be used to steer the beam(s) in a particular direction. This entire process is all electric, so the beam direction can be controlled and pointed instantaneously in any direction. It is able to track the movement of a satellite in the sky, regardless of the movement of the car, boat, airplane, or train."
Also frequency re-use. They will talk on the same frequency to multiple ground terminals, but pointed different directions from the satellites perspective.
The flat panel is a phased array dead give away. The performance and cost advantages of digital beamforming are such that you can pretty much assume any high tech antenna is a multi channel array.
Some Googling revealed that the FCC reversed this in June of 2022.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/6/30/23190463/spacex-starlink-...